Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

SUTTER v. COX et al.

         JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         1. The objection to the form of the declaration comes too late. It should have been made in the Court below.

         2. There is nothing to show any error in the refusal of the District Court to set aside the default. The loose affidavits referred to in the argument are no part of the record.

         3. One of the defendants was sued by the name of John Cox. Service is returned upon James Cox, and the judgment is against J. Cox. This is error, unless there was something in the record to show that the person served was the person sued.

         The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded as to J. Cox, but affirmed against the other defendants.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Sutter v. Cox
(Oct 1, 1856)